Mid-range fund would make decisions easier: Universal
Mike Baard, director of Universal Pictures Australia, says the $60m production fund for mid-range films would make distributors’ decisions to invest in Australian films – such as Sanctum and Dracula: Year Zero – “easier”
Will this fund really encourage distributors to invest in local films?
Talking for Universal Pictures, we’re announcing one film today, Alex Proyas’ Dracula: Year Zero today. Any fund that makes the decision easier for the distributor to either invest or come on board purely on a minimum guarantee basis is to be welcomed. It’s a very risky business and it’s a very expensive business to be operating in; once you’ve taken the production budget out of play, you always have to consider the P&A, which can exceed the production budget.
This fund will definitely help distributors come on board in a more positive way, in particular those studios that are not looking at the Australian market from an investment perspective; it will definitely make the decision easier.
You’re the current chairman of the Motion Picture Distributors Association of Australia, and as such you were present at Shadow Arts Minister Steven Ciobo’s announcement of the Coalition’s plan for the arts. What happens if the Coalition doesn’t win the election and the $60m mid-range production fund is not established?
The industry has been going for more than 100 years, and a change of government is not going to stop it or accelerate it. If the Coalition doesn’t win, it doesn’t mean that nobody will be making Australian films, but [the fund] would help ease the decision. It’s a massive risk for everybody involved; it’s an artistic endeavour, and we want to support it in a commercial and financial sense, but we can only do it if the risk is manageable.
Any diminishment of resources will mean that decisions around which films to make or come on board as a distributor will be put at risk
Sanctum is a film in that mid-range category (with a reported budget of $30m)…
Yes, and due to the level of budget associated with Sanctum, the Australian filmmakers (producer Andrew Wight and director Alister Grierson) were able to bring on board the greatest commercial filmmaker in the world – James Cameron – as a guiding hand, and that’s incredible. With this film, people will see what that level of budget can bring to a film, and I feel fairly confident that audiences will agree that such scale of filmmaking hasn’t been seen in Australia in a long time.
What SPAA has correctly identified is that we have a lot of films that are made at a low-budget. It doesn’t mean they have low quality or ambition, but financially, it’s very difficult for them to compete. It’s one thing to have a cultural imperative, and another to be making commercially-oriented films that an audience wants to see for entertainment reasons.
The stories that are more ambitious inevitably require more budget, and we as distributors want to see creatives make films on a bigger canvas that will ultimately see a repayment of that investment. There’s a level of budget for films that haven’t been made in Australia in the last few years, and it’s a risky area. That’s what we’re in the business to do.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but Universal had not distributed any Australian films before Sanctum. Why?
That’s not the case at all. Universal (the studio) has often invested in Australian productions, Babe and Peter Pan were two higher profile examples, as was Catch a Fire – although that was not a story set in Australia.
However we are a fairly new business (as a distributor); we set up in late 2006 and released our first film in mid-2007. Since then we have been very active behind the scenes and have a number of projects we are developing. We are in post-production on Sanctum and, as I said, today at the Movie Convention we will announce Dracula: Year Zero, a very special project we are doing with one of Australia’s most celebrated filmmakers, Alex Proyas.
Compared to other international divisions, how does Universal perform in terms of distribution/co-production of local projects?
Universal is very active in many non-English language markets around the world. We have business units set up in Mexico, Brazil, France, Germany, Italy, Russia and Hong Kong. We have a strong business plan in Australia but this is predicated on quality not quantity. We have the resources and appetite to make films and will when the right projects come along. As mentioned above, we have three films in various stages of production right now.
What’s been stopping Universal from making local films instead of just distributing them? What incentives are necessary to take that step?
Incentives cannot ever be the reason to make a film. They help mitigate risk and get the project across the line, but ultimately it simply comes down to the creative idea, the script, the elements, the filmmaker – if these align you have a chance of your film coming out okay.
We would probably rather invest in projects we have developed than simply to come on board as a distributor, there is honestly not much money in being a distributor for hire, we will do this in cases where it makes sense but we believe we offer the most value in being a vertically integrated participant in the process.
What were your strongest performing films of the 2009/2010 financial year?
We’ve had a number of films achieve above $10 million which is always a good benchmark. Bruno ($14m), Inglourious Basterds ($13.7m), Couples Retreat ($11.3m), It’s Complicated ($15.9m) and Robin Hood ($18.7m) stood out in terms of gross box office, we were also very happy with the results for Get Him to the Greek ($9.2m and still going) and Nanny McPhee and the Big Bang ($8.3m).
What titles didn’t necessarily meet your expectations?
The Wolfman ($4.2m) didn’t connect with audiences, which was a disappointment, and I think in time Green Zone will find a wider audience. It still delivered a strong result ($6.7m) but I personally feel it deserved to be seen by a wide audience
Were there any surprises, positive or negative?
Inglourious Basterds was a privilege to work on; we participated prior even to securing the rights and saw this through to a very successful tour which Quentin Tarantino did of Australia. For a film with a fairly large proportion of foreign language to gross nearly $14m is testimony to Tarantino’s film-making prowess.
How experimental are Universal’s plans in terms of distribution models?
It is crucial the industry gets the balance right between satisfying consumer demand and protecting the investment made by exhibition. Very few people disagree that the optimal place to see a film is in a well presented cinema with good screen and audio. The exhibitors in Australia have made a big investment to ensure they offer world class facilities and I think audiences will remain eager to see films in that environment. For those however who cannot attend cinemas in the numbers needed to make the financial investment in some films manageable, I think we may see some opportunities in the VOD world
Has your marketing budget changed, or are you focusing your promotional efforts across a wider range of platforms?
It continues to get more expensive to release films, not just due to inflation but certainly the proliferation of multiple channels means you need to be ubiquitous to reach your audience – whether they be niche or mass. It certainly is putting pressure on the bottom line.
What was your best campaign of the year?
The campaign for Robin Hood achieved the objective of positioning the film as an event. We had limited access to talent because of restrictions imposed by the film’s participation in Cannes; that said we worked with Russell Crowe in his capacity as producer on the film and he was very generous in providing us with the time to deliver the message we needed to.
With an increasing number of 3D titles already competing for a limited number of screens, do you anticipate a saturation level where there are more films than screens?
There is a short term issue where demand exceeds supply. The whole world is trying to convert at the same time meaning hardware manufacturers cannot deliver to everyone’s desired timeframes. But Australian exhibitors have been quick on the uptake, meaning we are not leaving a lot of consumers with no access to 3D. Any issues related to this should be relatively short term.
While 2009 registered a record box office intake, attendance was down a little. Can ticket premiums compensate for that decrease in attendance, in the long term?
Demand for film is at an all time high, it is just a greater number of delivery options for the consumer to view them on. Ticket premiums are almost always the result of a greater investment from exhibitors to offer a better experience to the consumer, films which engage an audience will attract a higher proportion of ticket sales then those that don’t so the prerogative lies with the content creators to deliver compelling films. I am very confident this will continue.
Will the performance of recent local hits increase distributors’ interest in local product?
We don’t judge a film by its country of origin. We all realise Australian audiences don’t go to see a film specifically because it is Australian, or specifically because it is not. If the narrative and characters engage, then the job is done. To that end, the introduction of the offset has, I believe, empowered producers / filmmakers to tell more ambitious stories and we will see audiences engaged at a higher level as a result.
Is there any audience knowledge that distributors have that is no reaching local producers/writers/directors?
Certainly. I have been disappointed by the amount of producers and people in the creative community who have a very limited understanding of the distribution landscape and what it entails to get a film into its target audience’s focus. However we don’t have this information available in the form of a text book; it comes from years of honing your craft, building an innate knowledge of what works and doesn’t. It is interesting that many successful producers are also the ones who take the time to develop an understanding of the commercial realities of the market.
What should producers keep in mind when pitching a project – emphasis on the business side instead of just the storyline, perhaps?
I don’t think there is a playbook. If someone has a unique vision for their project, it will come through. Knowing about all aspects of the process will help; you can’t see the finish line unless you know the route to get there.
What are Australian distributors really looking for in a local film?
Distributors are operating commercial businesses; we need to make money and have finite resources. We therefore are looking for films which are commercial, however more than anything we want to find films where the IP of our business can add value. Where we can shape consumer expectations and influence demand. All of the top distribution companies have terrifically experienced people working for them, most of whom are passionate about film. Having the opportunity to come on board early and help shape a campaign from the films inception to release, and doing it well, is incredibly satisfying.
Do you provide feedback when you turn down a local film for distribution?
Whenever possible, yes. We get some very slapdash submissions including more than one with no covering letter. We want to help where we can, so will always endeavour to substantiate why we are passing on something.
